|
Post by snowman on Jan 20, 2020 14:42:44 GMT
The Richmond consultation has been removed so manybe they 2 are tied up. It's certainly possible. But it's my suspicion that TfL have simply 'deleted' the Richmond consultation, as it's impractical to implement it in its current form because of the Hammersmith Bridge complications. My guess is that the "this page is being updated and is currently unavailable" text on the now-empty Richmond consultation page is just standard placeholder text rather than a genuine promise of a soon-to-arrive update. Perhaps I'll be proved completely wrong - but I'm not holding my breath. They have removed the consultation, and you do not normally need to remove it to simply amend the published page and add a few words at top saying due to Hammersmith Bridge closure the proposed changes are now on hold, and currently no timeline for any further update. Even if their system requires page to be removed and then be replaced, adding one sentence (copy and paste from approval) takes seconds not days or weeks.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jan 20, 2020 16:08:41 GMT
It's certainly possible. But it's my suspicion that TfL have simply 'deleted' the Richmond consultation, as it's impractical to implement it in its current form because of the Hammersmith Bridge complications. My guess is that the "this page is being updated and is currently unavailable" text on the now-empty Richmond consultation page is just standard placeholder text rather than a genuine promise of a soon-to-arrive update. Perhaps I'll be proved completely wrong - but I'm not holding my breath. They have removed the consultation, and you do not normally need to remove it to simply amend the published page and add a few words at top saying due to Hammersmith Bridge closure the proposed changes are now on hold, and currently no timeline for any further update. Even if their system requires page to be removed and then be replaced, adding one sentence (copy and paste from approval) takes seconds not days or weeks. Indeed. I emailed TfL Consultations last May to ask if they were still intending to publish the results of the Richmond area consultation, and if not, I suggested that they add a short note to the consultation page stating that the plans were on hold due to the Hammersmith Bridge situation - exactly as you suggested above. I pointed out that to do so would be a simple courtesy to local residents, many of whom had already faced considerable recent bus disruptions following the bridge closure, and would no doubt welcome some clarity on the changes proposed in the consultation. TWO AND A HALF F***ING MONTHS LATER, I finally got a reply stating: That reply arrived in mid-July. The "fuller update" never came; in fact, not a single word was added to or removed from the page before its mysterious disappearance earlier this month. I don't see any reason to expect its return, but we'll just have to wait and see. I think the dust has finally settled, for now, on services in the Richmond and Barnes areas - and I can't imagine that TfL will be in any rush to shake things up again until the bridge has finally reopened.
|
|
|
Post by george on Feb 25, 2020 13:08:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 25, 2020 14:30:06 GMT
Lets hope so. Is this the £25 million work TFl are paying for which will get it open asap for SDs again?
|
|
|
Post by george on Feb 25, 2020 23:08:07 GMT
Lets hope so. Is this the £25 million work TFl are paying for which will get it open asap for SDs again? saw this on twitter this evening.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Feb 25, 2020 23:15:52 GMT
Lets hope so. Is this the £25 million work TFl are paying for which will get it open asap for SDs again? saw this on twitter this evening. There’s a tweet about reopening (in 3 years time) to Electric Single Deckers... That doesn’t bode well for DD conversion at the moment. Will good to see the full details later this year.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Feb 26, 2020 0:22:54 GMT
saw this on twitter this evening. There’s a tweet about reopening (in 3 years time) to Electric Single Deckers... That doesn’t bode well for DD conversion at the moment. Will good to see the full details later this year. We already know that the refurbished bridge won't support double-deckers - in fact, we've known this for almost six months. The plan agreed and announced last year is to refurbish the bridge to be able to support electric single deckers. If memory serves, the cost to support heavier vehicles was estimated at around 25% more, which the key stakeholders have ruled out. It's been very clearly, and repeatedly, established that the cost of upgrading the bridge to support heavier vehicles is prohibitive, especially when only £25m of the £120m funding needed for the agreed plan has so far been confirmed. I don't understand why speculation continues about various cross-river routes like the 33 and 72 being upgraded to DD operation when the bridge reopens and their routing is restored, when it's been made quite clear that the bridge won't support the electric double-deckers that would be needed to satisfy future tender requirements.
|
|
|
Post by george on Feb 26, 2020 0:50:04 GMT
There’s a tweet about reopening (in 3 years time) to Electric Single Deckers... That doesn’t bode well for DD conversion at the moment. Will good to see the full details later this year. We already know that the refurbished bridge won't support double-deckers - in fact, we've known this for almost six months. The plan agreed and announced last year is to refurbish the bridge to be able to support electric single deckers. If memory serves, the cost to support heavier vehicles was estimated at around 25% more, which the key stakeholders have ruled out. It's been very clearly, and repeatedly, established that the cost of upgrading the bridge to support heavier vehicles is prohibitive, especially when only £25m of the £120m funding needed for the agreed plan has so far been confirmed. I don't understand why speculation continues about various cross-river routes like the 33 and 72 being upgraded to DD operation when the bridge reopens and their routing is restored, when it's been made quite clear that the bridge won't support the electric double-deckers that would be needed to satisfy future tender requirements. Not sure it's speculation merely that routew15 was probably unaware that bridge won't be able to take double deckers.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Feb 26, 2020 0:56:16 GMT
What's happening to the temporary Hammersmith bridge?
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Feb 26, 2020 1:28:24 GMT
What's happening to the temporary Hammersmith bridge? The key stakeholders have agreed to look into the possibility of funding a temporary bridge for pedestrians and cyclists only. A temporary bridge for vehicles was - as some of us have been trying to explain for months - never ever going to happen. It was never a practical option, it was never going to get funding, it was never even a possibility. The idea that was floating around a few months ago - from an industrial design firm claiming to be able to build, maintain and dismantle an entire temporary bridge for vehicles for just a few million pounds (I think it was £5m?) was utter fantasy and nonsense. It was a great way for a company to generate some positive buzz and media attention for itself, but it was entirely impractical and ignored simple but essential realities: connecting the bridge at both sides to existing roadways; the need to avoid disrupting river traffic; the fact that existing properties would need to be acquired and demolished; and the need to ensure that works on the old bridge could continue without delay or intrusion. TfL, the only stakeholder to have put up any funding for the bridge repair project so far, has voiced precisely no support for a temporary vehicle bridge. Other key stakeholders, including Richmond and Hammersmith & Fulham councils, have explicitly ruled it out. H&F, for example, told residents in November: There is no funding and no stakeholder support for a temporary vehicle bridge, so it's not going to happen. A temporary footbridge is more likely, given the broad level of support for one, and the fact that it would also allow refurbishment works to proceed more quickly and with fewer complications on the old bridge. However, funding still needs to be agreed.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Feb 26, 2020 7:54:11 GMT
There’s a tweet about reopening (in 3 years time) to Electric Single Deckers... That doesn’t bode well for DD conversion at the moment. Will good to see the full details later this year. We already know that the refurbished bridge won't support double-deckers - in fact, we've known this for almost six months. The plan agreed and announced last year is to refurbish the bridge to be able to support electric single deckers. If memory serves, the cost to support heavier vehicles was estimated at around 25% more, which the key stakeholders have ruled out. It's been very clearly, and repeatedly, established that the cost of upgrading the bridge to support heavier vehicles is prohibitive, especially when only £25m of the £120m funding needed for the agreed plan has so far been confirmed. I don't understand why speculation continues about various cross-river routes like the 33 and 72 being upgraded to DD operation when the bridge reopens and their routing is restored, when it's been made quite clear that the bridge won't support the electric double-deckers that would be needed to satisfy future tender requirements. Less speculation...more like I didn’t do my usual search in the thread. There are statements made, discussions had and questions repeated several times across the forum by new and old members, so just because something maybe known does not mean it won’t or can’t be brought up. Nonetheless, Thank You for the above.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Feb 26, 2020 8:09:42 GMT
There’s a tweet about reopening (in 3 years time) to Electric Single Deckers... That doesn’t bode well for DD conversion at the moment. Will good to see the full details later this year. We already know that the refurbished bridge won't support double-deckers - in fact, we've known this for almost six months. The plan agreed and announced last year is to refurbish the bridge to be able to support electric single deckers. If memory serves, the cost to support heavier vehicles was estimated at around 25% more, which the key stakeholders have ruled out. It's been very clearly, and repeatedly, established that the cost of upgrading the bridge to support heavier vehicles is prohibitive, especially when only £25m of the £120m funding needed for the agreed plan has so far been confirmed. I don't understand why speculation continues about various cross-river routes like the 33 and 72 being upgraded to DD operation when the bridge reopens and their routing is restored, when it's been made quite clear that the bridge won't support the electric double-deckers that would be needed to satisfy future tender requirements. I don’t know this, how much difference is there between the weight of an electric single decker and a regular hybrid double decker? Thought they were pretty similar because of the weight of the batteries.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 26, 2020 9:02:09 GMT
We already know that the refurbished bridge won't support double-deckers - in fact, we've known this for almost six months. The plan agreed and announced last year is to refurbish the bridge to be able to support electric single deckers. If memory serves, the cost to support heavier vehicles was estimated at around 25% more, which the key stakeholders have ruled out. It's been very clearly, and repeatedly, established that the cost of upgrading the bridge to support heavier vehicles is prohibitive, especially when only £25m of the £120m funding needed for the agreed plan has so far been confirmed. I don't understand why speculation continues about various cross-river routes like the 33 and 72 being upgraded to DD operation when the bridge reopens and their routing is restored, when it's been made quite clear that the bridge won't support the electric double-deckers that would be needed to satisfy future tender requirements. I don’t know this, how much difference is there between the weight of an electric single decker and a regular hybrid double decker? Thought they were pretty similar because of the weight of the batteries. Diesel single deck : typically : 9t - 11t Electric single deck : typically 11t - 13t Double deck : typically 12t - 13t loaded (and it varies on length and equipment) single deck about 15t, electric single 17t diesel double 18t electric double 19t But ultimately axle weight is also important on a bridge An 18t bus might be 7.5t on front axle and 11t on rear axle Clearly only the rear axle is critical I do not know if they considered an axle weight limit, or making an exemption for 3 axle buses (to spread the load) might have been possible. Maybe it was discounted as not much enthusiasm in TfL for 12-13m tri-axle buses (even if ADL make E200XLBs for New Zealand so could have produced a batch for UK). To be honest, looking at the proposed cost, I suspect many wanted to replace the bridge with a modern strong bridge, spending all that money and ending up with a weak bridge makes no sence, except to those that see it as a historic design icon rather than transport infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 26, 2020 11:19:05 GMT
I can understand the confusion as the info given out has always been conflicting and confusing. I'm still no wiser. So £120m is now not going to be spent or it will be spent but still wont be able to accommodate DDs?
If its not strong enough for DDs (and potentially still restricted to 1 bus at a time)and a patch up job is done again (for £25m) I wouldnt really say the statement that it will be fit for the 21st century is really accurate.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Feb 26, 2020 15:33:56 GMT
I can understand the confusion as the info given out has always been conflicting and confusing. I'm still no wiser. So £120m is now not going to be spent or it will be spent but still wont be able to accommodate DDs? If its not strong enough for DDs (and potentially still restricted to 1 bus at a time)and a patch up job is done again (for £25m) I wouldnt really say the statement that it will be fit for the 21st century is really accurate. The key stakeholders - which include TfL, Richmond and Hammersmith & Fulham councils, and English Heritage - have agreed to spend £120m to repair and refurbish the bridge. The agreed-upon plan was 'Option B' of three options considered; the most expensive, Option C, would have cost £150m and would have strengthened the bridge to accommodate heavier vehicles such as double deckers. The various parties were either unable or unwilling to approve the additional £30m required for that option. The wording of the joint announcement made last year, which included details of all three options, made it clear that Option B is intended only to support 'heavier electric single deckers' (or words to that effect), firmly ruling out electric double deckers. However, while the stakeholders have, in principle, agreed to fund Option B, they have not yet finalised the exact breakdown of how much (or what proportion) of the £120m bill will be paid by each of them. To ensure that essential emergency repair works could proceed, TfL has already put up £25m towards the total cost; a large chunk of this will already have gone to the first-stage contractors, industrial engineering firm Kier, who are handling the critical repair works, along with preliminary tasks to prepare the bridge and works site for the main contractor (who has not yet been selected). I believe the plan is for a main contractor (who will handle the full three-year deep-repair and refurbishment of the bridge) to be selected in late spring, so I would expect the stakeholders to have finalised their funding arrangements for the project sometime before then. There is no timeline in place for the proposed temporary foot/cycle bridge, as the funding it requires has not yet been finalised.
|
|